Believing in something without needing evidence.....conspiracy theory?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-05-2013, 12:52 PM
RE: Believing in something without needing evidence.....conspiracy theory?
(31-05-2013 09:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(31-05-2013 04:01 AM)I and I Wrote:  Still no explanation as to why people believe a plane hit the pentagon?

Off topic, in one second of film containst 24 frames, that is 24 pictures for each second. How many frames are in the video with the blur hitting the pentagon? I know I know, it's the camera that was used by the convenient store across the street. Of course they are shitty, which begs the question why are there no Pentagon camera angles released?
Maybe they believe the eyewitnesses, the debris, and the coincidence with other hijacked aircraft attacks. All of which was no doubt planted evidence involving the coordination of thousands of people and would have been unnecessary anyway since the WTC attacks alone would have precipitated the same American response. No?

What was it, then?

If it wasn't AA flight 77 then what happened to the damn plane?

The classic "that many people could't have been involved in keeping a secret"

Do you know that thousands of people worked on making the atomic bomb during WW2 it wasn't exposed or leaked and much of this is still classified. Ask me again how thousands of people can be involved in something and keep it a secret. And btw there are many people that were involved and didn't repeat the government line.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2013, 01:00 PM
Believing in something without needing evidence.....conspiracy theory?
(31-05-2013 12:52 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(31-05-2013 09:56 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Maybe they believe the eyewitnesses, the debris, and the coincidence with other hijacked aircraft attacks. All of which was no doubt planted evidence involving the coordination of thousands of people and would have been unnecessary anyway since the WTC attacks alone would have precipitated the same American response. No?

What was it, then?

If it wasn't AA flight 77 then what happened to the damn plane?

The classic "that many people could't have been involved in keeping a secret"

Do you know that thousands of people worked on making the atomic bomb during WW2 it wasn't exposed or leaked and much of this is still classified. Ask me again how thousands of people can be involved in something and keep it a secret. And btw there are many people that were involved and didn't repeat the government line.

Granted. So...do you actually have an idea what happened? Or are you just fucking with us?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2013, 01:50 PM
RE: Believing in something without needing evidence.....conspiracy theory?
(31-05-2013 01:00 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(31-05-2013 12:52 PM)I and I Wrote:  The classic "that many people could't have been involved in keeping a secret"

Do you know that thousands of people worked on making the atomic bomb during WW2 it wasn't exposed or leaked and much of this is still classified. Ask me again how thousands of people can be involved in something and keep it a secret. And btw there are many people that were involved and didn't repeat the government line.

Granted. So...do you actually have an idea what happened? Or are you just fucking with us?

It's a mix of both Drinking Beverage ...I love fucking with you guys especially if it's an issue I really believe. I do believe there are many holes in the governments theory of what happened on 9-11.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2013, 02:24 PM
RE: Believing in something without needing evidence.....conspiracy theory?
(31-05-2013 12:52 PM)I and I Wrote:  The classic "that many people could't have been involved in keeping a secret"

Do you know that thousands of people worked on making the atomic bomb during WW2 it wasn't exposed or leaked and much of this is still classified. Ask me again how thousands of people can be involved in something and keep it a secret. And btw there are many people that were involved and didn't repeat the government line.

It's not a truism for nothing, bro. How can thousands of people be involved in something and keep it a secret?

Ah, yes, the Manhattan project. Of the ~100,000 people involved, only a couple hundred, in any real sense, knew what they were doing. Or do you think the cooks and janitors and plumbers are relevant here? That there was some sort of large project underway was trivially obvious from the massive construction in New Mexico and Tennessee. Don't underestimate just how obscure the relevant physics knowledge was at the time - the truly critical teams contained very few people. And there WERE several spies among them!

What happened to the 64 people on American Airlines flight 77? You know, the one that (if it didn't hit the Pentagon) disappeared forever without a trace that morning? You didn't answer me on that...

What do you think happened? Who did it and why? What was the scope? And - here's the key thing - how was it kept secret?

Unless you actually have answers to that - why do I suspect you don't? - you've got nothing. Questioning the official story just because it's the offical story is called paranoia; rejecting one explanation without substituting another is called willful ignorance. Neither is a particularly productive attitude.

(31-05-2013 01:50 PM)I and I Wrote:  I love fucking with you guys especially if it's an issue I really believe. I do believe there are many holes in the governments theory of what happened on 9-11.

Like, for example, such as ... ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2013, 05:14 PM
RE: Believing in something without needing evidence.....conspiracy theory?
For the paranoiacs cards from a game released in 1995 :

[Image: illuminati+cards.jpg]

There are a problem , the game not predict the 911 attack why ?

In the game the tower to left is not felled when the tower to right is felling.
But in reality this is not the same thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2013, 05:43 PM
Believing in something without needing evidence.....conspiracy theory?
(31-05-2013 05:14 PM)viocjit Wrote:  For the paranoiacs cards from a game released in 1995 :

[Image: illuminati+cards.jpg]

There are a problem , the game not predict the 911 attack why ?

In the game the tower to left is not felled when the tower to right is felling.
But in reality this is not the same thing.

The game has been around since 1982. Are you saying the art in these 2 cards was only created for the 1995 release?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2013, 07:34 PM
RE: Believing in something without needing evidence.....conspiracy theory?
(31-05-2013 02:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ~rejecting one explanation without substituting another is called willful ignorance.

No. It's rejecting one explanation and not having another.

If a man hanging from a 40' high line tells me he got there by jumping flat footed from the ground, it is not incumbent upon me to explain how he actually got there before I can denounce his explanation as false.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2013, 09:16 PM
RE: Believing in something without needing evidence.....conspiracy theory?
(31-05-2013 07:34 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  No. It's rejecting one explanation and not having another.

If a man hanging from a 40' high line tells me he got there by jumping flat footed from the ground, it is not incumbent upon me to explain how he actually got there before I can denounce his explanation as false.

No? I was being a little flippant, so perhaps it was insufficiently clear what I meant.

It depends on both the circumstances and prior knowledge, obviously. In the strictest sense, your analogy only shows that different situations are different. Did this happen on the moon? Because then it's perfectly plausible... That's the difference with your analogy. We all, immediately, have enough prior knowledge to conclude it unlikely.

How might one determine whether the man's claim is correct? Just because prior experience indicates it to be implausible, does not necessarily make it impossible. I'd agree in dismissing him - but it would be a simple test to be sure. Ask him to reproduce the event.

But why does it seem unlikely? That requires knowledge of human physiology and physics. So there are quite a few things already known about the situation. One might suppose he climbed out from one end of the line, or was dropped onto it, or climbed up with something that has since been removed - each explanation requires similar knowledge (of the principles involved, and prior situations). Our wire-dangler's explanation runs contrary to what is known.

But let's return to the events of September 11th 2001.

Hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center towers (if you're denying that, well...).

The claim is that it wasn't another of the hijacked planes that hit the Pentagon.

This is not only immediately inconsistent, but in fact explains less about what happened than the alternative - what DID hit the Pentagon, and what DID happen to the aircraft in question? WHY was the one event supplemented with another less genuine? What ADDITIONAL people were involved in planning and executing this, and what ADDITIONAL people have since kept quiet about it (or - let's go all the way to crazytown - were silenced)?

So the situation here is rejecting one explanation (on ideological grounds due to its source) and necessitating another more complicated one - one which explains fewer of the known facts and relies on a great deal more supposition - and then not even providing that other.

Ockham's razor, in other words, rips it to shreds.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2013, 10:08 PM
RE: Believing in something without needing evidence.....conspiracy theory?
(31-05-2013 09:16 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No? I was being a little flippant, so perhaps it was insufficiently clear what I meant.

It depends on both the circumstances and prior knowledge, obviously. In the strictest sense, your analogy only shows that different situations are different. Did this happen on the moon? Because then it's perfectly plausible... That's the difference with your analogy. We all, immediately, have enough prior knowledge to conclude it unlikely.

If I wasn't arguing philosophically, we could put the man on the moon. But then there would be a whole lot of infrastructure to build first. That's why I like to argue what is known and what is known to be reasonably within the grasp of human beings. Maybe my great grandkids will have to include the moon and its gravity in their philosophical arguments... but I don't.

Quote:How might one determine whether the man's claim is correct? Just because prior experience indicates it to be implausible, does not necessarily make it impossible. I'd agree in dismissing him - but it would be a simple test to be sure. Ask him to reproduce the event.

The point is that I don't have to determine that it's correct or incorrect. Again, I argue within the constraints of reality and no human has ever been known to jump over about five feet from a flat footed position. To assume that one human all of a sudden can jump 800% higher than the very best athletes on the planet would be as absurd as putting power lines on the moon.

Quote:But why does it seem unlikely? That requires knowledge of human physiology and physics.

No. It requires knowing that humans can't jump 40 feet high. A dog can catch a frisbee in flight but we don't assume he understands the physics principles in play when he times his jump just right.

Quote:So there are quite a few things already known about the situation. One might suppose he climbed out from one end of the line, or was dropped onto it, or climbed up with something that has since been removed - each explanation requires similar knowledge (of the principles involved, and prior situations). Our wire-dangler's explanation runs contrary to what is known.

No. All we have to know is that humans can't jump forty feet high. We don't have to know the biology and physics of why humans can't jump forty feet high.

Quote:But let's return to the events of September 11th 2001.

Hijacked planes hit the World Trade Center towers (if you're denying that, well...).

The claim is that it wasn't another of the hijacked planes that hit the Pentagon.

This is not only immediately inconsistent, but in fact explains less about what happened than the alternative - what DID hit the Pentagon, and what DID happen to the aircraft in question? WHY was the one event supplemented with another less genuine? What ADDITIONAL people were involved in planning and executing this, and what ADDITIONAL people have since kept quiet about it (or - let's go all the way to crazytown - were silenced)?

So the situation here is rejecting one explanation (on ideological grounds due to its source) and necessitating another more complicated one - one which explains fewer of the known facts and relies on a great deal more supposition - and then not even providing that other.

Ockham's razor, in other words, rips it to shreds.

I'm not interested in returning to the minutia of the Pentagon crash. I merely pointed out that one doesn't have to provide an alternate explanation of an event in order to denounce a claimed explanation.

And the reason why I won't comment on the details of the event is that they are inconsequential. We know for a fact that the US federal government has been caught in thousands of lies over the past century or so. We also know that the military purposefully puts out false information as a part of its war games. So who gives a shit, really? So what if we find out the government orchestrated the entire chain of events on 911?

Nothing will change. There will just be a new group of sociopaths elected in by people who think "their" guys will do it right. And... their guys will go on lying, stealing and cheating just like the ones before them. The only difference will be a letter after their names. Oh and, the color of their lapel buttons. Oh wait... and the kind of critter on their lapel buttons too. Tongue

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2013, 12:39 PM
RE: Believing in something without needing evidence.....conspiracy theory?
(31-05-2013 05:43 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(31-05-2013 05:14 PM)viocjit Wrote:  For the paranoiacs cards from a game released in 1995 :

[Image: illuminati+cards.jpg]

There are a problem , the game not predict the 911 attack why ?

In the game the tower to left is not felled when the tower to right is felling.
But in reality this is not the same thing.

The game has been around since 1982. Are you saying the art in these 2 cards was only created for the 1995 release?

Yes in my knowledge these cards are from the 1995 release.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: